Are your posts written in a jocular fashion, or are you serious? Of course there is no evidence of anyone spreading sedition, except perhaps those in the administration that seek to trounce on the constitution, but it is far to premature to make to that claim, other than to hypothesize. And some would argue that abortions don't kill babies, but the fetus. Aside from that is that how you want to defend a side...? By saying they are both equivalent?
I'm dead serious. There is evidence of sedition, it's called CNN 24 hours a day. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Cindy Sheehan, etc. Open your eyes. Some would argue, but they would be wrong. And for what it's worth, I'm not defending a side. Buck is the one that said that both extremes had flaws, mcmark countered with nonsense, and I responded to the nonsense. Sorry for the confusion.
sedition \sih-DISH-un\, noun: Conduct or language inciting resistance to or rebellion against lawful authority. _______________ Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Seems the lawful authority rests with CNN and Cindy Sheehan. You can argue, but you'd be wrong.
Incorrect. Lawful authority is the administration. Whether or not there is a law prohibiting sedition is irrelevant to this discussion.
Saying CNN 24 hours a day, or even Cindy Sheehan is far from providing any proof of sedition. I don't know which would be funnier... The fact that you would have been joking or the fact that you claim to be dead serious and then say proof of sedition = CNN 24 hours a day.
So you are someone who believes the President is above the law? It is your opinion that the executive branch doesn't have to follow the laws that bind others? Welcome to D&D, this could fun.
You're still not quite there. I'm claiming Sheehan's actions as sedition. You refute this by posting the first ammendment, which prohibits legislation against sedition. This doesn't negate the fact that her actions are seditious.
That's a curious interpretation of the 1st Amendment... part of The Bill of Rights, which is not quite the same as the Bill of Prohibited Legislations. Yours are the ramblings of an Autocrat who does not recognize the First Amendment not only prohibits laws from infringing on speech, press, redress of grievances, and assembly, but primarily affirms the rights of American citizens. "One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson Also, note Justice Black's thoughts... Criticism of government finds sanctuary in several portions of the 1st Amendment. It is part of the right of free speech. It embraces freedom of the press. --Justice Hugo Black Then, of course, there is Sam Adams, who always had a way with words... “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” --Samuel Adams
